14/01/2016 Newsnight


Newnight talks to chancellor George Osborne about the EU. Why did pollsters call the election wrong? The Hatton Garden heist. Plus director Alejandro Inarritu.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, the Chancellor tells Newsnight that there can be NO


This is the vote. There is no second vote. This is the vote, this is the


crucial decision of our lifetime. We sit down


with him in Berlin to discuss how the negotiations are going,


and what it means for Britain. Sparkling diamonds, they are giving


Hatton Garden sleepless nights! The nearest thing to an Ealing


comedy that real crime gets. Three men are convicted


for the Hatton Garden heist - what it is about jewellery


theft that makes it such And we talk to Juliet Stevenson


about her friend and co-star The Chancellor has told Newsnight


there can be no second vote on Europe and called


on the British people to focus on what he calls a 'once


in a lifetime decision'. His comments are being interpreted


as a direct response to some campaigning on the Leave side -


who had floated the idea - behind the scenes -


of having two referendums - so that people would feel freer


to vote to leave if it meant Britain then having another chance


at negotiating a BETTER deal - an idea the Chancellor


was quick to scupper today. George Osborne also suggested that


in key EU member states a consensus was emerging that Britain had made


a perfectly reasonable case for change which would


improve not just the UK - Whilst talk was of renegotiation


he also staked his claim The next Conservative manifesto


in 2015, will ask for a mandate from the British people


for a Conservative government to negotiate


a new settlement with our European And with that the Prime Minister let


the blue touchpaper for the big It was perhaps no surprise


that he appointed his long-term ally, George Osborne,


alongside the Foreign Secretary, And, over the past few


months in a flurry of summits and meetings,


Britain's demands have fallen One, sorting out the relationship


between euro members Two boosting competitiveness


and reducing red Three protecting sovereignty


by exempting Britain from ever close the union and bolstering


national parliaments, and four, measures to restrain


migration, such as limiting The Chancellor is in Berlin today,


continuing the arguments on all that with the German and French


finance ministers. Now obviously migration has


caused some friction And it is that that has attracted


most public attention. But don't let it detract


from the things going on in the renegotiation,


in particular, one way of looking is as a ginormous U-turn


in British foreign policy. You see, for years,


the mantra has been, we have to cling on to


the idea of one Europe, Britain in that Europe,


sitting at the top table alongside John Major talked of Britain


being at the heart of I want us to be where we belong,


at the very heart of Europe. Tony Blair referred


to Britain as full players I believe we in Britain should start


to have a little more confidence in our ability to shape


arguments, have influence, play our part in Europe,


without constantly worrying that Europe will turn


into a conspiracy against Britain. So the renegotiation


wraps all that up. You might even call


it a tear-jerker. Because what it tries to do


is put into writing, Europe, codifying the relationship


between members of the euro Britain still in the EU,


but not at its heart. One stop on his brief trip to Berlin


to was a trendy office space for business start-ups,


a tour with the French economy minister.


And there he sat down. And there he sat down with me.


Chancellor, many people think of the renegotiation is just for show.


People who support the efforts you are making, what do you see in it


that is important? There are some people in Britain who definitely


want to leave Europe and others want to remain. I think the majority want


to stay in a reformed European Union and that is why this negotiation


matters because it offers the chance of a new settlement between Britain


and Europe where we are not part of of a new settlement between Britain


ever closer union, with the Eurozone cannot impose changes on us,


ever closer union, with the Eurozone need consent. If we achieve that


settlement they will have finally put at ease that often fractious


relationship between Britain and put at ease that often fractious


Europe. Give me a practical example. put at ease that often fractious


Let's hold migration aside put at ease that often fractious


difference it makes. Welcoming put at ease that often fractious


is one practical example. Just put at ease that often fractious


before the summit the Eurozone tried to land Britain with the bill for


the Greek bailout. That would have had an impact on British taxpayers.


the Greek bailout. That would have because of agreements we had already


reached at a political level but it was a close run thing. We need


permanent changes so that British taxpayers do not bail and European


countries. Another example, some businesses were told they could not


locate in Britain because it businesses were told they could not


part of the Eurozone. businesses were told they could not


challenged that. But we want to enshrine it in the


challenged that. But we want to just enshrine it in the rules of the


challenged that. But we want to European Union but of a safety


mechanism that enables us to enforce those rules. You are saying that


this marks a significant rewriting of the relationship between members


and nonmembers of the euro, for example? For me, as the finance


minister, at least the most important part of what we are trying


to achieve is ensuring that Britain can operate alongside Eurozone that


is integrating and creating ever closer political and economic and


financial union, because Britain doesn't want to be part of that and


I don't want Britain doesn't want to be part of that and


choose, as some would say, between doesn't want to be part of that and


joining a single currency, something we never want to do, and leaving the


European Union. You know how these we never want to do, and leaving the


negotiations are going, have you made up your mind on how you will


vote in the referendum? What I want to do is achieve a successful


renegotiation, that is one thing I want to do in Berlin. But we can


achieve that we can recommend to the British people that we can stay


achieve that we can recommend to the this reformed European Union. Until


the conclusion of that renegotiation, we rule nothing out.


So you, George Osborne, really could actually recommend to the British


people that we the European Union? As I say, we rule nothing out.


Accent I don't go into these things, David Cameron is not going to these


things, my Cabinet colleagues do not go into these things thinking that


we will fail. We watched as exceed in these negotiations. Here in


Berlin just weeks before a crucial European Council when we will make


these decisions, I am pretty optimistic. We can see the central


pieces of the deal falling into place. We will achieve a more


competitive Europe, make sure we will not be part of ever closer


union. We will be able to secure our rights as a country not part of the


euro and I think we will be able to deal with the abuse of free movement


and people travelling just to claim welfare benefits. Achieve those


things and you are dealing with many of the major concerns people have


about the status quo in Europe. A big step forward. Is the Treasury


planning contingencies for bricks at -- Brexit? This is where the


resources of the Treasury are deployed... Six months from


negotiating an exit, you are open-minded about whether we will


stay in or go out and you are not prepared for it! As I say, our


efforts on making sure that we achieve a successful renegotiation.


And I see, not just in Germany but in France, in other key states,


consensus emerging that Britain has made a reasonable case for change,


and this new settlement is not only better for Britain but potentially


better for the rest of Europe as well. I am optimistic. One of the


reasons we got this far is because a lot of hard work has been done, not


just by the politicians but by civil servants, to achieve it. In the


interests of plain speaking and clarity, most people know that you


support EU membership and you will be optimistic that you will be


supporting it because the renegotiation is going well enough


for us to stay in. You would not defer from what I have just said is


a summary of your position? I will put my way. I hope to be able to


recommend that we should stay in a reformed European Union. I came into


the House of Commons in 2001, I'm a Eurosceptic like many of my


conservative colleagues because I'm Eurosceptic like many of my


concerned about some of the things that happened in the European Union.


That's why I want to make this changes... Let's talk about seeking


a position where we can achieve this changes. Then we can have the best


of both Wells, we can be in the European Union, yet not run by it.


To use an old, but apt slogan. Let's talk about something that matters


more on the continent and possibly more to the people of Britain, which


is migration, refugees, flows of people. David Cameron implied that


is migration, refugees, flows of for Europeans to come to Britain


they would need a job. Then he implied that if they were there for


six months without a job they would have to go home. It seems that all


of that has been dumped and we have a much watered-down objective in


of that has been dumped and we have terms of the migration of objective


and renegotiation. Is that right? The objective that we are seeking is


the one we put in our manifesto that button voted on last year. That is,


you cannot abuse the free movement of people just to come to our


country and claim benefits. And we need to address this... It has been


watered down from what the prime ministers said in 2014. I don't


think that's true. David Cameron, in a speech at Bloomberg, said we had


to address the abuse of free movement. Benchmark one Commons


select committee was told, on a specific proposal of curbing


benefits, he said it would not have much impact, do you agree? I don't,


actually. Budget have you looked at the impact that it will have? The


work that has been done, including by bodies like independent Europe,


respected think tank, is that this would help reduce the flow of


migration to the UK. Paige will it get it down? Do you seek European


migration coming down, post renegotiation? If you remove the


unnatural drawer of our welfare system, you will be able to reduce


it... Down to 10s of thousands, the overarching objective of this


government? It will contribute to it. Has 10s of thousands will


include migration from non-European countries so we will take measures


to make sure that that is not abused either. Many people have said you


have been clever with the living wage proposal, raising it to ?9 or


more by the end of parliament. If that helps British workers it will


be an enormous drawer to Polish or central European workers, won't it?


What we want our migrants who make a big contribution to our


What we want our migrants who make a paid their taxes, and that is a good


thing for our country but we want that migration to be controlled and


we don't want our migration system to be abused. OK if they come for


the minimum wage, as long as they do not come for benefits. Using to be


saying, yes if they are working, no if it is benefits. I am not saying


that migration is a bad thing per se but and must be controlled. On this


issue of borders which will clearly be a big part of the campaign, Alan


Johnson, on this programme last might, said that if we leave, you


will not get your borders back. Any plausible scenario, he said, about a


new relationship with Europe, we will, like Norway and Switzerland,


maintain free movement of people. Is that your view? If we vote out when


the referendum comes, we will probably end up with free movement


anyway? I agree with Alan that if you look at the other models offered


like Norway and Switzerland and the like, there are open borders in the


sense that this is part of the deal that they had to sign up to. I would


say Britain has the best of both worlds. The reason why we don't have


won a million refugees flowing in, in the way that Germany has had, is


precisely because we are in control of our borders. Benchmark will we


have a border or not after the referendum? Will we have free


movement, this is a basic question and we don't seem to have a clear


answer to it. We have a border today because


Britain is not part of Schengen from a -- the free movement. We are not


part of the single currency. You raise a perfectly good question,


which is, if it comes to the referendum, and there are people


advocating that we leave in that referendum, they will have to answer


the question, what is the alternative, are we going to have


free movement of people, are we going to have to pay into the


European budget to have access to their market anyway, will we have


European budget to have access to sign up to the rules even if we


don't have a vote on those rules, these are all the things that


countries like Norway face today. And they will be good questions to


put giving a referendum campaign. Do you think a referendum will settle


it? I think it will, for at least a generation, for my lifetime. Some


people talked about a second referendum. This is the vote. There


is no second vote. This is the crucial decision of our lifetimes.


Anyone who votes out on the assumption a year or two later you


can have another vote to go back in is being unrealistic. It is


important British people focus on the fact this is a


once-in-a-lifetime decision. Last one, you are going around capitals


of Europe and they are worried about migration, terrorism, Paris events,


ten killed in Turkey. Do they not look at you and think they have


bigger things to worry about? Talking to Germans here. Businesses,


some of the German people and the politicians, they understand many of


Britain's frustrations and share some of them. They want Europe to


succeed and create jobs and growth and offer security, let's achieve


the reforms and have that settlement so we can vote to remain in that


reformed Europe. It was like the plot


of an Ealing comedy. A gang of ageing criminals,


with bus passes and sleeping bags, pull off a ?14 million raid on safe


deposit boxes in Hatton Garden - astonishing Scotland Yard,


and perhaps themselves, too. Three of them convicted


at Woolwich Crown Court of involvement in the country's


biggest burglary. Of course, no crime is victimless,


and much of the money and jewellery But no one was hurt in the raid,


and for romantics of a certain Sparkling diamonds, their value


running into millions, are giving Hatton Garden


sleepless nights. Willie Sutton, the most famous


American bank robber, they asked why he robbed banks


and he said, because that is where Last Easter raiders got


into the Hatton Garden vaults, lowered themselves down a lift shaft


and used high power drills to access It was like a reboot


of the Lavender Hill Mob, except this lot were


like the Over The Hill Police say the gang who broke


into a vault in Hatton Garden... They said the thieves


were organised. There was a theory it had


to be an international gang like the Pink Panther, this


famous gang of robbers and thieves. That there was not enough British


ingenuity left to carry it out, that we have two imports doctors and IT


people and footballers and we have to import criminals, also. But the


elite international cartel theory took a dent after the flying squad


arrested a group of British criminals getting on in years. In


fact they had a combined age of 500. A lot of them are having to go like


this to hear the evidence. They have to to be excused periodically


because they need to pay a visit. There is a lot of talk about hip


replacements and bladder problems and so on. The firm included


76-year-old Brian Reader, also known as the governor, who admitted his


part in the job. He went as the governor, who admitted his


burglary by bus with the Freedom pass and apparently got cold feet


after the crooks fail to crack the vault on the first night. Kenny


Collins, 75, admitted his involvement, he drove the getaway


car and kept watch outside the vault but the court heard he fell asleep.


Daniel Jones ex 60 almost the baby of the group. Police found a copy of


forensics for dummies at his house. He took part in the theft. William


Lincoln claimed he had been at Billingsgate Fish market at the


time, but was convicted of his part in it. Noel Razor Smith has served


time for armed robbery and for many years has gone straight as an author


and journalist. Professional criminals are always after the big


one and the big one is something that is a job you can undertake and


retire and never go back to that is a job you can undertake and


criminality or prison again, and this was their big one, which is why


I'm surprised they messed it up so badly. Rule number one when you


start out in this game, if you are going to the trouble of doing a job


like that, do not have the gear around you afterwards. The number of


people who can do this is very small and it is a matter of the flying


squad looking at who is in or out, who is dead, who is abroad, and the


list is small. If you are on the list, you will be contacted. As


their dreams turn to dust the ageing ringleaders faced the prospect of


spending their declining years inside. Daniel Jones confessed and


told police he could lead them to his stash, under the headstone of


told police he could lead them to one of his dear departed in a north


London cemetery. Before that outing took place, officers came to the


cemetery by themselves and under another headstone belonging to


another member of Jones' extended family they found a second larger


hall of loot, which Jones had strangely omitted to tell them


about. When he was confronted about this, he said, oh, that, that was


for my future use. To most professionals, giving back what you


have stolen is anathema. You do not want to do the work, do the prison


sentence and come back to nothing. You do not want to give back what


you have stolen, a hard fact with criminality. Why do it and then give


the money back? Putting a job together takes patience and money


and skill. Today's criminals have not got that. They are the last of


their kind. The dinosaurs of the criminal world and the last to be


taken down. Police surveillance tapes captured the gang's hopeless


bravado. Danny Jones, one of the guilty men, tells Terry Perkins,


another of the guilty men, on this tape, well, at least, Terry, we can


say we gave it one last go. I think it would make a good title for the


film. You hear them talking about it is the biggest, expletive deleted,


burglary in the expletive deleted world.


He had a capacity to fell you with a look or lift


you with a word, Emma Thompson said today.


Paying tribute to her friend and co star, Alan Rickman.


When his death was announced earlier it felt to many like a thump


An actor whose powerful and commanding presence


gave him a unique voice - and the adoration of millions -


He reached film fame relatively late in life - but then his


list of successes - Die Hard, Sense And Sensbility,


the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and Severus Snape


in the Harry Potter films showed his range and the depth


Juliet Stevenson played his partner in Truly Madly Deeply -


an achingly moving film about loss and grief.


She joins me, but first, a reminder of the scene


in which he appears to her from beyond the grave.


# A deep shade of blue is always there.


# The sun ain't gonna shine any more.


# The moon ain't going to rise in the skies.


# The tears are always clouding your eyes.


That film is unbearably poignant. Doubly more so today. Looking at it


I am thinking it is a good representation of what he could do,


which was basically everything. Make people cry, laugh, fall in love with


him. Very sexy, delicious, surprising, challenging. He could do


anything and you get a sense of his surprising, challenging. He could do


range in that film. Those scenes were improvised? That scene was


improvised because there is not much dialogue in it and it was the


hardest scene to shoot. The great gift of making that film with him


was it was clever casting by Anthony Minghella because we had known each


other a long time and I Minghella because we had known each


him like many people as a family member more than a friend, even. We


had a lot of history and it played in well to the story of the film. He


was inventive to work with, very creative, thinking all the time


about the bigger picture. He had his eye on everything will stop what the


camera was doing, what the design was. He thought very big and had


many kinds of talent that could was. He thought very big and had


address itself to all parts of the job will stop he had a lot to offer


in every department will stop he was more than an act but an inspiration


to everyone on the crew as I am sure he was on every group. The voice was


hypnotic. Sometimes there was a look, as Emma Thompson said, one


look, one word, and I broke, a glance. -- an eyebrow. He was the


most economic person. He is looking down now saying, just think before


you speak. He could make you roar with laughter with a couple of


words. He could say something insightful with just one line.


Astonishingly economic, but he had a laser beam accuracy about what


needed to be said, whether it was funny, insightful, tricky,


challenging. Is that from his stage structure that came before film? He


was a theatre actor for a long time before he became a big movie star.


He was a classical actor on stage and we met at the Royal Shakespeare


Company. A lot of busted who were friends of him. He had an incredible


technique. As for that capacity, he always have that. -- as a lot of us


were. He was instinctive, intuitive. His judgments came from an amazing


blend of the mind, intuition, hunch, observation. And great humanity. We


think about the baddies that he relished playing, but also the


uptight characters that gave so little away like the kernel in sense


and sensibility, when it was so English and restrained. Which he was


not in many ways. He did not come from the English upper class. I


think he was genuinely a classless person. There was no hierarchy for


his heart. He treated everybody with the same courtesy and generosity of


spirit. That is one reason he is very loved. He would be as courteous


to the driver, dresser, or the director of a movie and it is not


sentimental to say that. He saw the possibilities in everybody. He was


famously and and most generous. He would give people the courage to go


in a direction, help young people find their path. Was there a scene


or conversation or an exchange that lies in the heart of your


relationship together? There are so many of those. I have just come from


a house full of close friends and his wife, where everybody is


a house full of close friends and stories. We feel we have lost our


leader. Because he was who we look to for guidance. He was more than a


close friend, he was a great light in our community. We all


close friend, he was a great light have lost the steering wheel in our


car. We will rumble along the have lost the steering wheel in our


but not know quite which way to go for a while. I do not know if


but not know quite which way to go pick out a single thing. When I


played pick out a single thing. When I


measure and had success with it, playing a virtuous, intelligent and


forthright playing a virtuous, intelligent and


see a is good, but now I think you should


is good, but now I think you should play her as though she had bright


red six inch heels. I thought, what do you mean? And then, I see what


you mean. There needs to be sexuality in this character. He


always pushed you in a surprising direction you may not have


always pushed you in a surprising recognised, but he was almost


invariably right. None of us who loved him really know how we will


get along without him. Thank you so much.


For eight long months, one of the unanswered questions


of the general election is why the result took so many by surprise.


Where, in other words, did the polling go wrong?


Next week, we will see the findings of the official report into it.


But today, leading psephologist John Curtice made his


What emerges isn't rocket science, but a failure quite simply to talk


One pollster who got the prediction right -


And published it before the result came out


He says that the problem was much bigger than that -


that there was a failure to talk to the politically disengaged.


To put it another way, you don't ask those who go to church


You also ask those who only turn up at Christmas,


last to's general election produced the most unexpected result in a


generation. The opinion polls pointed to an incredibly close


contest. Pundits, forecasters and politicians thought I hang


Parliament was inevitable. They were all wrong. Before the election I


uncovered a series of statistical patterns that suggested that things


were not as they seemed. Looking at historical patterns, local


elections, by-elections and what people thought of the leaders I was


convinced that the headline numbers were wrong. But how were the opinion


polls so far off? Politics in were wrong. But how were the opinion


last Parliament was unusual. Two thirds of two ready ten Lib Dems


abandon the party. The pollsters got back right. Although they thought


more people would vote Labour than Tory. They were right in thinking


that the vote share of Ukip would quadruple although wrong in thinking


it would hurt the Tories much more than Labour. That is how the


pollsters ended up in complying with than Labour. That is how the


this result of 2015. After the election I dug into the results and


found the Tories were gaining more votes from the Lib Dems than


believed and Labour was losing more support to Ukip than indicated. The


narrative around the changes in the British political landscape was


wrong. Wax to Mark White? To measure public opinion, pollsters do not ask


everyone. One sample of 1000 people can be enough to give an accurate


estimate although it must be representative, or made


representative. Pollsters, put more weight on the types of voter


representative. Pollsters, put more they have too few of and less weight


on people whose opinion they have too much of. This time it went


wrong. The study conducted after every general election uses a


different method. Unlike convention in polling where you would call 1000


people and then wait them against that they looked like the general


population we take addresses more less out of the hat and we went to


those houses and interviewed the people who lived there. The end


result is that first you get a sample that looks more like the


general population without re-weighting. And secondly for


political purposes the number of people who said they voted for each


party looked almost the same as the election result and like most


pre-election polls. My analysis suggested they ended up with too


many political in gauge to people. Sampling was behind the mistake. --


politically engaged people. The young respondents were not


representative of their age group. As if they were putting too much


weight on Twitter users with a political axe to grind. People voted


for one the coalition parties in 2010 and switching to an opposition


party were overrepresented. Those who voted Tory in 2010 and stayed


loyal in 2015 were under-represented. In simple terms


we'd need more people who do not engage with politics. Or don't vote.


We overestimated the turnout. We will want to do a better job on that


next time. The huge challenge will be polling for Britain's EU


membership referendum, the electorate will vote across party


lines making weighting method is less effective than before, which


places an even greater premium on getting a representative sample.


Pollsters have been examining political activity, browsing habits


and even whether they watch Newsnight. If they are going to get


this right pollsters need to work towards more representative samples.


One of the intere Lunch Mac sting things is not


result, but what effect it had on the election result as a whole.


Tom Baldwin worked for Ed Miliband until he lost the election.


Rosie Campbell, from Birkbeck University,


has research interests in voting behaviour


Tom, looking back, what did it change? I think it made both


campaigns more risk averse. People were talking about it being a very


close campaign and a lot was at stake. And it changed the end of the


campaigns. In those final two weeks, all the news was about the risk of a


campaigns. In those final two weeks, Labour government propped up by the


SNP. The BBC was particularly obsessed by this story. We could not


get our 's story, the risk of a Tory second term, a Tory majority, up at


all. I think that changed the campaign and might even have had


some influence on the result. If the opinion polls had been accurate you


would have had a final stage of the campaign where people would have


been looking at a Tory majority government. Were people scared with


whatever they thought was going to be the result? That is the only way


you will get people to vote against it. Certainly you must talks if I go


opponents. The Tories were very successful at talks if eyeing us. We


were raising legitimate points about what would happen to the tax credits


and the NHS. But got no airtime in the final weeks. The contrast with


2010 when everyone expected a Tory majority and Gordon Brown pulled


back a bit of the end because people were talking about Tory majority


government, that did not happen this time. Rosie, the problem is that if


they get people who are not politically engaged, if pollsters


keep going to people who are offering good opinions, that cements


the problem. Some of it is about statistical literacy. We need to


know what is a good-quality pole and what is not. And actually the


high-quality darter discussed in the video, they make between six and


nine attempts to reach the same individual, whereas some of the


pollsters are making one attempt. That costs money. It has been an


investment in resources. Who was not spending that? Nobody apart from one


server is being able to put in that money and effort, so it's a plug for


social research, to understand what the electorate once you must invest


in high-quality surveys. While doing your own internal survey was there


not a sense from you, from the MPs, from politicians, we always hear


about the doorstep, does no one say anything helpful on the doorstep? I


think everyone got this wrong, the pundits, the politicians, the


pollsters. You are the party so innocents you know if someone likes


you. One thing that is true is come in every election I can remember,


including mine and seven, 2001, 2005, with the exception of 2010,


the Labour vote has been slightly overestimated in the opinion polls.


That is why a lot of us were a little sceptical about whether we


would win a majority will be the biggest party. Very sceptical.


Whether opinion polls affect the way that the media covered the campaign


and the fact that perceptions, that is the big question. Interesting


when we talk about lazy Labour, is the big question. Interesting


shy Tories, as if people were lying is the big question. Interesting


on the phone, they didn't, if this was right. There is no evidence of


lying. It looks as if it is a sample biased issue and Labour voters were


easier to read so if you made one attempt to contact the body you will


more likely to reach a Labour voter. The young people either on the phone


or the Internet were the kind of young people who are interested in


politics, a rare breed, and they are more likely to vote Labour. And


there's something else about Labour voters, they seem to be more readily


available. Tom, if you were doing it again now, knowing how the polls


were skewered, what would you have done differently in those last few


weeks? No Ed Stone, more focus on travel? What would you have told Ed


Miliband to do? Is a lesson to everyone. Pollsters and parties.


Opinion polls should not be the basis, the frame on which campaigns


run. There were 700 of them last year. It was driving a lot of what


we were doing, a lot of of the media were doing. We were not really


having a debate about different programmes of government, it was a


gigantic process story, what happens if Labour are propped up by the SNP.


That wasn't doing the electorate any favours. It wasn't allowing them to


make a rational choice about the options available. Would there have


been a different policy wore different language used by Labour,


knowing what you know now? We would have talked much more about the


prospect of a Tory majority government and what it would mean.


What does this mean, going ahead, we have a year


full of elections now, not least the EU referendum. Does this mean we


don't rely on pollsters, or we have collective amnesiac and go back in?


I think what we should do is treat opinion polls with caution. The


chances of collective amnesiac are high because copy will be needed for


newspapers so there will be polls, although I think the commentators


will take them with a pinch of salt. I am sceptical about the polling


industry funding the silver bullet that will solve its problems. Labour


has a credibility problem and I think the polling industry does as


well. Finding out you did not reach in of Tory voters is like us saying


that we did not rich enough Tory ones! Thank you both. I am afraid


that is always have time for tonight, but we will be back


Download Subtitles